Hey, there! Log in / Register

Borrow-a-bike buffoonery

I'm as much for bikes in Boston as anyone, but the rent-a-bike model isn't everything the Globe cracks it up to be (and Tommy doesn't mention that this trip was a press junket, as Google News makes obvious.) It lines the pocket of a monopolistic private entity, is a back-door tax on bicyclists, and does absolutely nothing to enhance Boston's bike infrastructure. Publicly owned space that could be used for public lockups will go to the rental program; local bike shops could be hurt as people eschew private ownership; landlords could be harder to convince to make secure storage space available. What about those of us who don't want to ride a hulking heavy bike, spend 15 minutes walking to the 'nearest' bike rental cage for a 15 minute bike ride, pay by the hour, worry about whether a bike will be available/whether we can return it in time, or give someone a $200 security deposit? What about all the fuel wasted redistributing bikes? Why are Boston leaders wasting time with solutions in search of a problem, instead of giving us bike lanes, road signs, hoops around meters, and public bike racks? Meanwhile in London, they're banning locks on rental bikes- but yet renters are responsible for thefts. It's not hard to imagine such idiocy here.

Mr. Matlack should have asked Parisians how to paint a line on pavement for less than $30,000 per mile, so we can have more than 3.2 miles of bike lanes. New York city manages to install 60 miles of bike lanes a year and installed 800 bike racks in one year. Chicago has hundreds of miles of paths and 10,000 bike racks (yes, you read that right: 10,000 bike racks.) All of that was accomplished without idiotic rental programs. In Boston, it's not even clear if the 250 bike lockups that were promised in 2007 have been fully installed; in JP, they seem to only exist in front of City Feed.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

1) Lines the pockets of a monopolistic private entity? Of the 12 companies competing, 4 are ad agencies, the rest are groups focused on health and livable streets.

2) Doesnt enhance infrastructure? Infrastructure wont be built unless theres people to use it. People wont use it if theres no infrastructure. Its the vicious cycle. Every time a bike lane is proposed in other cities (Boston doesnt even propose them usually) the first reaction is "why give space to a group that wont use it? nobody bikes!".

3) The program has nothing to do with the bike rack program. Both will grow together.

4) Bike shops wont be hurt. European programs show that bike share increases interest in bikes and people move to purchase their own expensive ones.

5) Dont want to ride it? Then dont. The programs arent for everyone at first. Watch the college students and tourists ride, then feel free to join later. You act like the program will involve confiscating your private bike. Is your bike more convenient? Then use it. But say youre downtown, and the T is facing delays,a nd your bike is safe at home...why not use a public bike for the cost of the fare?

6) Again, this isnt the only focus, its part of a coordinated effort to improve biking. New bike lanes will be installed this year.

7) of course renters are responsible for theft.

8) yes all 250 were installed, theres a map online.

Id also like to add that the bike share program costs the city.....Nothing. In fact, the city is trying to make money off it, which is also a bad idea

up
Voting closed 0

It might not be all it's cracked out to be, but I doubt it's going to be the end of free cycling in Boston. In fact, the first tourist to get doored, it'll all be over for Boston's bike rental biz.

up
Voting closed 0

The vendor is required to have a very hefty insurance policy.

Did zipcar go out of business when someone crashed one of their cars?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd venture it's way, way, way safer to be a tourist in a low-speed crash (Boston-area streets don't move all /that/ fast) with another car, when riding in a Zipcar, than in that same crash whilst riding on a bicycle.

White stripe or not, Boston streets are pretty dangerous places on which to ride bikes. I also know that at least 18-24 months ago, police departments in such /enlightened/ villes as Cambridge chuckled at cyclists, cuz we're kind of cute and zany with our concerns about being doored, and having to veer into traffic because Central Square's bike lanes are parked up with donut delivery vehicles, and so on.

NYC got it right. 9th ave (and another, not to mention a nice chunk of broadway) has physically walled-off bike lanes along with wide pedestrian paths, and enough room for cars to transit, but not so much that the cars can move at a pace that's putting everyone else at risk.

up
Voting closed 0

Zipcars can be used in highways too. And even in the city, at 30mph, you can easily kill a pod of pedestrians (see the 9 or so kids killed in NYC last month on the sidewalk). The point is, insurance is not an issue. The vendor will be required to have a very large policy and it will be a non issue, especially because the vendor will rarely be liable. When someone doors you, its not the bike manufacturers fault, its the person in the car.

I completely agree with you on the bike lanes.

However, Boston is NOT that dangerous. I ride frequently, and Ive ridden in paris. Every resident likes to complain about how much their mass transit sucks, how terrible the drivers are, and how unpredictable the weather is. Everywhere you hear the same things. Before Velib, less than 1% of parisians biked. That number is now up to 5%. If you think Boston has bad drivers, i think you need to try driving around a european city.

up
Voting closed 0

Two serious accidents - one in Lowell, one in Framingham ... both more or less my fault (single bike accidents - bad infrastructure related in both cases, but still ...).

It is bad, but some of us survive it somehow.

up
Voting closed 0

I think your Tin Foil hat might be a bit tight.

Plenty of cities have bike rental programs and they work. Why in Zurich you can even "rent" a bike for free right near the Bahnhof.

The city already turns over "Publicly owned space" for private use--we call them Parking spaces. In the more popular places, they charge for it --we call those Parking Meters. If there is a way to squeeze revenue from it, the City will charge the rental spots for the space they use. Imagine that, revenue for City and environmentally friendly (dare I even say...fun) transportation.

Easy up chicken little, the sky is not falling.

And by the by Brett, why do you care--don't you ride a scooter?

up
Voting closed 0

Wow Brett, talk about doom and gloom. Did you forget to take your Prozak, or what?

Brett, we're talking about bike rentals here, that's it. We're not building a nuke plant in Back Bay, we're just offering a bike rental for a few bucks an hour. You can rent one, or choose not to rent one. The world will continue to exist.

up
Voting closed 0

Has had a pretty successful program for at least five years. It's hard to go anywhere in most major German cities without seeing the DB's very distinctive bikes ready to be rented.

up
Voting closed 0