To expand on my earlier comment: Want more docks? Want one in a specific place?

Get in the game by anteing up for a membership, if you haven't already. Ride the system that's in place now, using the most convenient docks. Ask your friends and neighbors and co-workers--people who may have the same use patterns as you--to do the same. Work for a big, successful company? Ask them to consider giving memberships to all employees as a benefit.

This bike share is a big business, run by some very smart people. They have access to all kinds of data on ridership and membership patterns. And they don't have that many outside forces governing their success: they're basically a utility, with a city contract and free access to dock space, so they're not hostage to rent increases. They build their bikes themselves. All they really need is your membership dollars flowing in, and their rolling ads getting seen.

They have plans to expand by 15 more docks--a 42% expansion--fairly soon, if this first wave works well AND draws in lots of new JC members. Beyond that? There are no bigger plans for JC as far as I know. But again, it's a business. You think if they got 10,000 new paid-up JC members tomorrow, and people were lining up for bikes six deep and begging for more, they wouldn't adjust and increase coverage? I can't speak for them, but I suspect they would. Wouldn't you?

Yup. Bike and walk stuff is dirt cheap, yet we throw buckets of money to pander to the passenger car. Even if it weren't dirty and dangerous, that would be stupid. Low-cost, low-key, small-scale transport opens up local economic opportunity, bringing people to jobs and customers to local shops.

Agree with all that.

Quote:

I will say this: I totally do support subsidies for bike share, just as I support them for the trains and buses. They can be used to spread a system into less profitable areas of a city and serve everybody better, to keep membership prices lower, etc.

It just happens that we have a bike share system that's been paid for with private money, and there is absolutely nothing that requires us to pay a dime of JC tax dollars for it. The only legal recourse Citi Bike has if it can't make ends meet here is to leave and plop our docks down in Astoria or Morningside Heights or one of the many other places where they're currently SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER because we got them first.

Or maybe it's more of a Shelbyville idea.

Yyyeah again posting articles from a year and a half ago, about conditions at the time, which any cursory review of more current coverage would reveal have changed.

But OK, you're right. In Jersey City's half-billion-dollar budget, the thing that we didn't spend money on, and are not required to spend a dime on, is the "money pit." Not the endless buckets full of money spent to perpetuate deadly car dominance. Not unfair of you at all.

Quote:

It is cool! It has been improved many times, many ways, since Citi Bike launched in NYC. Better displays, more reliable and up-to-date data.

By the bye, that and other (non-Citi-built) bike share apps generally overlay onto the public Google Maps in Bicycling mode, thus showing the bike lanes too, in green. Those are visible because, well, I put them there, along with my fellow Bike JCer Michael Flinck. We rode every inch of each one to make sure it was actually done, and edited them into Google Maps.

Several are still missing, particularly some crosstown lanes across northern Greenville, because we haven't fully surveyed them yet, and we don't want to lead anyone astray. City maps of the lanes are more for their planning purposes, so we want to be sure.

(Of course, lately some have been damaged by utility work, though they are still at least partially visible and all are supposed to be repaired promptly. We'll see. The repairs we have seen, like on Duncan Ave., have gone pretty well, with whole blocks resurfaced and the whole bike lane repainted from scratch.)

Anyway, just in case you were wondering what we at Castle Bike JC do with all our free time and vast fortunes.

Quote:

There are, though we won't hear from many of them here, mainly because when people are happy with something, they are less likely to jump on a forum--especially this one--and comment about it. Unless they're advocates like me.

And of course, the bike share here, as in every city, is meant to have benefits that go well beyond just the people who use it. It's meant to:

-- replace some car trips, moving a given number of people with less car traffic, thus (mile for mile) less road wear, less air pollution, and less danger of crash injuries and deaths, all of which affect non-Citi Bikers plenty

-- make biking even more visible, especially biking as transportation, thus encouraging others to consider doing it on their own bikes in a virtuous "cycle"

-- help to calm down motor traffic, just by the sheer number of bikes on the streets (that's a proven effect, and it actually helps pedestrian safety even more than biker safety)

-- encourage and enable local economic activity, from dining out to light shopping, thus boosting JC businesses, employment, tax base, etc. (because people on bikes generally don't ride to the Short Hills Mall, they spend their money here)

Those are all benefits of bike share that accrue to people who DON'T use it, as much as to people who do.

Tell your community and elected leaders that, before the area rebounds and becomes busier, you want the physical improvements that will keep it livable and make it safer when it does grow: bike lanes (protected ones if possible), great crosswalks and corner curb bumpouts for pedestrians, speed humps to reduce speeding, etc.

Take this rebuilding opportunity to make Ocean a Complete Street for its bright future.

So just to recap, FAB, they're not spending tax dollars on this, so they're not sapping funding for bikes lanes, etc.

As for failures in other cities, there are FAR more successes. There are about 40 bike shares currently in operation in the U.S., including in cities with broiling summers, snowy winters, hills, whatever. There are 7,500 bikes running just across the river in our sister Citi system. There are an estimated 1.5 MILLION bike share bikes available in the world at this moment. And the fact that a lot more new cities are coming online soon is hardly an indictment.

You like being ultra-conservative, a late adopter? That's fair. But we're hardly pioneers here.

Quote:

His name is Elijah, he's not a pimp, and he's a very pleasant guy. Though what he does with his time, aside from striding about looking magnificent and going to church, seems to be somewhat mysterious; he often speaks in metaphor.

My friend Jayne's blog post about Elijah

Quote:

I don't love the Jersey Ave. bridge, but for me it's those wide, suburban racetrack "arterials" in our city that need to be beaten back ASAP.

These roads are the deadliest type around, ramming highway speeds and attitudes into crowded, complicated urban traffic, including bikes and pedestrians, and carving up what should be livable city neighborhoods like asphalt scars.

Governmental and traffic engineering groups and institutions, recently including the Federal Highway Administration, have now endorsed some excellent, proven solutions to this kind of 1950s nonsense: They explicitly recommend that a deathtrap like Grand Street, with 4 car lanes, be put on a "road diet," shrinking to 2 through lanes with a middle turning lane. The extra room is usually used for protected bike lanes in each direction, pedestrian islands, and other engineering designed for people, instead of cars.

That's exactly what my colleagues and I at the bike advocacy group Bike JC want done on the full length of Grand Street. We call it the #GrandStreetVision, and I hope many of you will support it as we move the proposal forward.

Most of those articles are fairly old relative to the U.S. bike share boom, including your wsj piece on Citi Bike's struggles, from a year and a half ago. More recent coverage would note its new management, totally new self-produced bike fleet, improved service, huge ongoing expansion, etc.?funded by $30 million from private investors.

Although, even if Jersey City eventually does spend some money on it, it will be a bargain given its many benefits, just as subsidized trains and buses are.

Unlike the real money pit: The huge, wasteful, ultimately self-destructive government spending on car monoculture, which continues to pour your tax dollars into the dirtiest, most dangerous, least efficient form of ground transport.

We could have disposable, solid-gold Trump Bikes for every citizen for what cars cost us, directly as taxpayers (constant road work, public land giveaways for $15 parking, oil wars) and indirectly as people (violent death on the roads, disease caused by air pollution and sedentary life), but we've been brainwashed to accept the status quo, so instead we kvetch about the "money pit" that our two-day-old bike share will inevitably become. Crazy.

Even if Citi Bike JC becomes a total, abject failure, it at least will have been an attempt to do the right thing, with lessons to be learned for future attempts, instead of the lazy, complacent continuation of a huge, tragic mistake that kills 30,000+ Americans a year violently, and countless more silently.

FYI, if you at a full or empty station, and need to find another, and you don't have your phone or the app or battery life or whatever ...

The stations themselves will display a map of nearby stations on their little display screens, also showing the number of bikes and open docks currently in each.

I think the extra 15 minutes you get as an annual member is meant as an incentive to sign up, plus recognizing we are the harder core who will naturally go farther.

I would personally find the 30 minutes confining for all the stuff I get up to, but I could see doing it as a bikeshare-savvy visitor just mucking around JC for a day and wanting to explore.

I did the ceremonial ride and then dock-hopped with a fellow Bike JC board member around like 5 different docks this afternoon, and everything worked great except for one individual dock that hadn't yet powered up.

All much better than day one of the NYC system, or for that matter day 100 of NYC. They have learned some things.

Oh, 2 slightly esoteric tips about Citi Bike:

1. Unlike most bikes with gears, which you're supposed to shift while pedaling lightly, Citi Bikes' internal hub gears are supposed to be shifted while you are NOT pedaling, just gliding. Works like a charm.

2. When you dock hop (riding one bike for most of your 30 or 45 minute limit, then switching it for another at a dock to get a new timer), you are locked out for about 2 minutes. You will get a red light if you put your key in. After 2 minutes it will give you a green light for a new bike.

There are a bunch of places where I would like to see more docks, particularly in the middle of residential neighborhoods away from transit stations (the true "last mile" or half-mile legs).

If they get a decent number of new memberships from JC, there will be more docks next year.

But here's the thing: If you support this in general, and want to succeed, yet you are unhappy about the lack of docks in your area, there is exactly one effective thing you can do about it: Sign up. Now.

I know that sounds presumptuous, but that's how a for-profit, largely subscription-based system like this works. Why? Because when you have an annual membership, you have leverage. When your year is up, you can always choose NOT to renew--and that is exactly what will drive more dock coverage and service, the desire to retain members.

If you object to paying $125 (with prelaunch discount good until Monday) for something that doesn't yet serve your neighborhood as well as you'd like, I totally understand. I have memberships here, in Hoboken, and even in freaking Philly, but I'm That Guy. If you don't want to spend the money, I totally get it.

But the reality is, paid members who demand more in order to stay members are the most powerful force in bike share.

Quote:

JC.

By the way, Citi Bike JC currently is offering $25 off annual membership, and I think the idea is that is a "pre-launch" offer, so if you wanted to take advantage, you might now only have until next Monday. Not sure about that, but I know they have used the term "pre-launch."

Launch will be a week from today, Monday, Sept. 21, 3 p.m.

Thank you, JCRider! I'm a board member of Bike JC, and you just saved me quite a bit of writing!

Quote:

They're not terrible in a little snow. The tires are fairly wide, with a little tread, and the weight and solidity of the bikes seems to help with traction and stability. Also, the step-through design makes it easier to put a boot on the ground if things get hairy.

Of course most people won't ride in the worst of winter. But some will. I recall that NYC got 3,000 or 4,000 trips on one of the worst days last winter (with 6,000 bikes, but hey, someone rode).

Quote:

That is supposed to happen with some docks; city estimated we will cover 10-20 parking spaces. The station at Garfield Ave. light rail station is in the street right now, though I'm not sure whether that spot was formerly legal parking.

My colleague on Bike JC's board, Patrick Conlon, is supposed to be on FiOS1 News tonight at 5 p.m., talking about this issue with their reporter Raven Santana.

Quote:

You're right, in a sense. I worry about that too. I worry about a great many things.

But ... [takes a deep breath and winds up for a more general rant that's not directed at you personally]

... people are already dying horrible, violent, preventable deaths on our streets. We MUST take some risks, because the consequences of delay and overthinking aren't risks, they're continued carnage -- guaranteed.

Some of these "we shouldn't _____ until _____" ordering concerns get in the way of change, and meanwhile, people die and suffer a host of other ills, because we're too timid. It's human nature: we'd rather let current conditions go on killing people (and causing many other problems) anonymously, and call it a tragedy, than put our names on "risky bets" that at least have a potential to save them.

I hear: We shouldn't have bike share until we have a network of separated bike lanes throughout the city, because it will be dangerous. They said that in NYC a few years ago when Citi Bike started. The crank pundits assured us it was CRAZY to put people on borrowed bikes in aggressive, chaotic NYC traffic, half of them without helmets. They told us there would be dead tourists stacked in the streets like cordwood, and blood running down the gutters. Yet two years and tens of millions of Citi Bike trips later -- a huge number of them on Manhattan streets without protected bike lanes -- not one person has been killed on, or killed by, a Citi Bike. Not one. And NYC is a big step closer to becoming a true biking city.

I hear: We shouldn't encourage people to bike in the streets of JC at all, because it's too dangerous. First educate all the drivers! First change all the laws! First this, first that. Not until, not before. Meanwhile, people bike on the sidewalk, which can be just as dangerous. And we who bike in the streets are fewer in number, which is more dangerous for us, as many studies show.

The most dangerous thing we can do is be too afraid to take bold steps to change a dangerous situation.

When calculating a "risky bet," you MUST factor in the risks of not taking that step. Our inaction and delay in the face of ongoing carnage is the riskiest bet of all.

There are already great laboratories testing out all the radical changes I support, namely a bunch of other cities, big and small, around the world. Many of them implemented those various changes in different orders, in different proportions, faster or slower, in different colors of paint, some over 40 years, some very recently, some flat, some with hills, etc., etc.

ALL of them had plenty of obnoxious, aggressive drivers when they started, because that's what car domination encourages.

And ALL of them, as far as I know, quickly became safer and better places to get around and live in.

So let's DO THAT STUFF, all of it, in whatever order we can swing it, however and whenever and wherever we can. A lot of it. Yesterday. That's a risk we can't risk not taking.

[end rant]

BTW, since we talked about carving streets up to separate peds and bikes and cars, I should also point out that there's another physical design, also popular in Holland, where there are NO divisions, not even curbs, and all road users just blend in -- slowly and carefully. These "shared streets" are designed to prevent high speeds by anyone.

Chicago is about to get its first one:

Chicago shared street

bodipooh, possibly I misunderstood you on some other thread.

As for pedestrians, they (well, we, since we are all pedestrians at some point) can be stupid, though in my book our laws and streets and everything else should avoid punishing them with death.

In Holland the law places pretty much total responsibility on the larger, heavier, faster traveler in any collision, so far fewer pedestrians die, even the most stupidest.

I think we should do that here. I realize that sounds annoying and perhaps somehow unjust. But we used to basically do that here, even in the early days of the automobile. In places where it applies today, it just becomes part of a much better fabric of transportation, where it's much easier to get around without a car, so most people do, and there are actually very few raised voices and shaken fists going on. The whole thing ends up being much LESS frustrating, as well as much less dangerous.

bodipooh, I think you have elsewhere doubted the wisdom of physical traffic calming, but that intersection and your frustration over police and camera enforcement illustrate why it should at least be tried.

Columbus is a suburban racetrack colliding with dense city traffic where it meets side streets. It should be narrowed, road-dieted, carved up, bulbed out, islanded, made more pedestrian- and bike-friendly, any number of things that are on duty 24/7 and have a very direct and nearly unavoidable effect on driver behavior. That's the direction all traffic engineering is taking lately, and amen to that.

If you have a dissenting opinion to that, I respect that, but frankly if you want to rely on law enforcement and cameras instead of road redesign, I wish you would tell me why, say, NACTO and half of northern Europe are wrong about how to cut traffic deaths by 75%.

I second Tony Blunda's AB Tees. It's quality stuff. He did all the shirts for Bike JC's Ward Tour the last two years, including those black shirts with the alt-logo by Green Villain that everyone likes a lot.

Quote:

Probably true, more or less; people go 30, and I want them to go 20. (That speed limit is becoming the standard for narrow neighborhood streets from NYC to London and elsewhere, as Vision Zero and similar safety campaigns take hold.)

But yeah, sidewalk cafe seating would likely be more effective at traffic calming on the bigger boulevards, where the sidewalks have more room for it anyway.

Quote:

Definitely need to avoid squeezing pedestrians off the sidewalk, or it will indeed be a negative.

Quote:

Small words: Don't have a study handy, but they've done them. Sidewalk cafe seating signals to drivers that people hang out here, and it's not a racetrack. And drivers, being humans, slow down. Other things that send the same signal: Lush street trees, public benches, artsy decorations of various kinds. Anything that says "YO, THIS IS SOMEBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD. PEOPLE LIVE HERE. MELLOW OUT."

Quote:

Not necessarily. If it takes up too much of the sidewalk, then yes, it's now discouraging pedestrians, and even effectively closing the sidewalk for people in wheelchairs, people with shopping carts, etc.

But if it is kept to a manageable width, sidewalk seating is one of many positive "placemaking" factors for an urban block.

It tends to calm car traffic in the street next to it, and it attracts strolling pedestrians and cyclists and encourages them to linger, in a virtuous cycle that can make the whole streetscape safer, friendlier, and more livable.