Streetsblog New York City

Wow, a bike-share program in NYC would really be fabulous and I want it NOW. I could instantly give up riding transit in most situations because I would no longer have to worry about finding parking and having my bike stolen.

Since when does the D train stop anywhere near New York-Presbyterian Hospital or Columbia University? I took it on Sunday and it only stopped at St. Nicholas and 145th and St Nick and 125th, quite a hike from those two destinations.

Regardless, that extended bike-share system would make getting hither and yon in NYC a lot more flexible.

I understand the reasons for Staten Island being left out. Most people that live here don’t work here. Low density on the South, West, East Shores. Very residential in those parts.

But damn does it suck being the last kid picked every last time. Hopefully the North Shore (specifically the St. George, Tompkinsville, Stapleton areas) will continue their promising resurgence. If all works out in those parts, a bike share expansion to the island could be possible in the future.

Crossing my fingers.

I believe the report mentioned a share station possibly positioned at the Whitehall Terminal. So that would make sense for interested Staten Islanders.

I should add that it is vital to include a visitor-pass option that can be easily upgraded to a full subscription pass. Without this it is difficult to make the system successful with people who are not already bicycle enthusiasts. Most of the general public starts out on a trial basis on some kind of impulse curiosity, and when they try it they usually like it.

RLB – I think that sharing is considerably easier than owning. Bike-shares offer a bunch of convenience benefits. Among them: much lower cost of entry, no need for bike-storage at home, easier one-way trips, no more risk of bike-theft (to the individual anyway), and biking should be considerably safer as there will be a ton more bikes on the road, raising driver awareness etc.

This is good news – but I am also curious to see how adequate funding can be secured in the near future. Federal assistance seems necessary to me to cover the initial costs.

Here’s the big takeaway I’m getting (page 86, emphasis added):

As scenario sizes expand to cover larger, less trafficked portions of the city (Queens, the Bronx and southern Brooklyn), other funding sources, such as advertising, would become necessary in order to maintain reasonable membership rates. In the scenarios that focus exclusively on New York’s most densely populated, highly trafficked areas (Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn), the $60/year pricing produces net revenues after accounting for operations costs.

This, along with the map on the following page, show that the operating costs can be paid with membership and fees if it’s confined to the area in blue on the above map plus Manhattan to 86th Street, Greenpoint and Crown Heights. If it’s extended beyond that area, it begins to lose money, requiring operating subsidies.

I think we should be very careful about subsidizing bike-sharing in these outer areas, making sure that the political will is there to sustain such subsidies indefinitely. The last thing we want is people complaining about “a program that doesn’t pay for itself.” Advertising franchise revenue is not available, because the city has already traded it to Cemusa for the construction of the street furniture.

The car dependence of southern Brooklyn, Queens and the eastern Bronx is not sustainable. Eventually, the market for bike sharing will emerge there. All we have to do is wait.

Look for a proposal to come from Worksman Cycles (NYC’s very own bike manufacturer – since 1898) and Halo Coatings (the world’s first retro reflective powder coating) to produce the world’s safest and most sustainable bike share program.

Halo and Worksman are teaming up to make the world’s sturdiest and safest bikes – bikes that can be seen in their entirety from 1,500 feet away at night – in a factory in Queens that is powered by solar panels. Our mottos:

“Think global. Act local” “Be safe. Be seen.”

“Bikes that look like ghost riders at night result in fewer ghosts by day.”

But the current problem with Paris’ bike-sharing program is that people are vandalizing the bikes, or even stealing them…of course we know how NYCers aren’t that bad….

#14 gecko,

Since mass transit normally tries to accommodate those people that have trouble using their systems such as the special seats at the front of buses, elevators in subway stations, handicapped parking spaces, attended wheelchairs in Amtrak and airport stations, bike systems should also have these accommodations.

Recumbent hybrid human-electric tricycles with the necessary safety improvements will provide a huge leap in making universal accessibility possible at the same time creating extremely convenient, practical, comfortable systems. More advanced systems will start to include mechanical (rail and guide way systems), electro-mechanical (to include use of radio frequency IDs), and increasingly intelligent automation with manual overrides.

#17 – You have some interesting concerns. Here’s what we know:

a. Retro reflectivity is not blinding. It is not hyper-illumination. Retro reflectivity is the efficient return of light straight back to the light source. Retro reflectivity allows drivers (sitting behind headlights) to see stop signs, dotted lines in the road and the tape on the bottom of trucks – none of which is blinding. Retro reflectivity has long been proven to enhance safety on the streets – and not cause accidents.

b. Powder Coatings are the most environmentally friendly coatings that exist – far more eco friendly than the liquid coatings that are currently applied to most bicycles. Powder coating creates no waste – whatever powder doesn’t stick to a target object is reclaimed and sprayed onto the next object – and powder coatings emit zero voc’s (volatile organic content). The greater durability of powder coatings enhances their cradle to cradle superiority over liquid coatings. Most bikes are made in China where they use liquid coatings – because they are slightly cheaper (in the short run) and the environmental regulations are more lax.

c. Halo Coatings were not developed exclusively for the bike industry. Halo’s primary target markets are highway and rail safety. Imagine guardrails that appear like ribbons of light at night and trains and train crossings that are fully side visible – and you get the picture.

d. Halo Retro reflective Coatings will be enhancing the visibility and safety of pedestrians and pets and is working with numerous consumer products companies to introduce a new and cost effective level of night visibility – including zipper, buckle, backpack, helmet, leash and stroller manufacturers.

e. Halo Coatings will not prevent or promote vehicular congestion or reckless driving by motorists or cyclists.

And finally, thanks – I think – for assuming we’re some large corporation with massive funds. We’re actually a few guys with a breakthrough technology for safety that we developed in the proverbial American garage and have the had good fortune to team up with some great companies ( like Worksman )to bring our technology to market.

It’s not clear why a public bicycle system has to pay for itself directly since people normally do not have to pay to walk down the sidewalk and it’s likely that extensive implementation will create lots of indirect revenue streams with the greatly improved quality of life; and, automobile and conventional public transit have enormous subsidies with direct and indirect costs way beyond those required for broad bicycle implementation on similar scales.

If a broadly implemented public bicycle system improves New York City real estate values by one percent, the equivalent dollar value improvement of the New York City one-trillion dollar real estate business is a whopping 10 billion dollars.

Perspective: Virtually identical to daily global mortality statistics for road accidents — largely acknowledged to be severely underreported in the developing world — former mayor Giuliani rightly described the single 911 event as horrific.

#14 Cap’n Transit, “I think we should be very careful about subsidizing bike-sharing in these outer areas, making sure that the political will is there to sustain such subsidies indefinitely. The last thing we want is people complaining about ‘a program that doesn’t pay for itself.’”

Response:
Much of outer areas are transit poor and would make even better use of this even at an increased cost which may not be justifiable since everyone benefits from inceased mobility across the city including real estate values. Hybrid human-electric vehicles and systems would likely be crucial to deployment in remote areas.

In advanced systems highly-integrated with other New York City services such as the City University of New York (CUNY), advanced university and public research library access, local communications (potentially), reduced rates on entertainment and sports venues, medical (potentially), the cost structure could be similar and depend on whether individuals/commuters pay city income tax, and the city could subsidize those most in need which would also be good for the local economy.

Since New York City is the largest local employer accesss to hybrid human-electric transport and transit could be a benefit of employment extending to outer areas with substantial benefit to the city by adding a level of resilience to city operation especially, in times of emergency.