8 ms·

Lyft Takes over Ford GoBike

143 points by mikhuang 7y ago

diebeforei485 7y ago
After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-lawsuit-san-francisco-dockless-docked-transportation https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...
- kjksf 7y ago
  As is their right. The city fucked up hugely by making an exclusive deal with Ford/Motive (acquired by Lyft). If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at SF government. The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. It was a bad contract but SF Government does many bad things, like repressive zoning and banning scooters. Go vote them out of the office.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Actually, contracts get broken all the time, and the only recourse you can get for that sort of thing is a lawsuit. This is by design.
  - delfinom 7y ago
    >The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Technically you can if you wrote a clause allowing it or other conditionals. But we don't know the full contract and it's up to a judge to interpret it seems.
- pensketch 7y ago
  You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bikes only' while Lyft is saying it was for a Bike Sharing Program, which could include docked or dockless bikes. Lyft does a good job describing what 'Bike sharing' is in that document so it will be up to the courts to decide if they're right. - “Bike sharing” is a public biking system concept that allows customers to rent a bike on a short-term basis from one section of a city and leave it in another section of the city that same day. - The Term Sheet provided, among other terms, that Motivate was to be the exclusive operator of any bike share system in the Participating Cities for at least ten (10) years. The Term Sheet provided (emphasis added): “During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.”
  - Larrikin 7y ago
    What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?
    - praneshp 7y ago
      That's the same as "What if I don't care about killing other people and just want the most space for myself". A contract is a contract.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Unconscionable contracts, especially when one of the parties is a taxing jurisdiction, have no ethical force. I'm not certain that this was an unconscionable contract, but you have to at least make the argument. What consideration did the people of this municipality receive in exchange for this encumbrance placed on their liberty?
        maxerickson 7y ago
        I read the contract as being about the use of publicly owned space for the docks. That seems more like a municipal corporation making a stupid agreement than it does an encumbrance on anyone's liberty. Rent private space for your bike racks...
        closeparen 7y ago
        Which might make sense in the city’s view that it is a deal about docks, not about all bikeshare.
      - damnyou 7y ago
        No, a contract is not simply a contract. Contracts are only enforced when a court agrees they are enforceable. A court can declare a contract unenforceable for a variety of reasons, such as if it was ill-formed, one side was overwhelmingly more powerful, or the contract is against public policy (such as non-compete agreements in California). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...
- egh 7y ago
  They removed the electric bikes only because of a safety issue. The non-electric bikes are still available. I haven't read anything about a relation to this event with a dockless bikeshare expansion.
- baby 7y ago
  I wouldn't defend the SFMTA They make SF objectively worse by being pro car (no lime, bad public transports)
iso1337 7y ago
I like these commute options that make it easier to get around but starting at $2/ride seems a bit high. If I were to use this twice daily for 200 days a year, I'd be looking at $800/year! I'd rather buy a bike in that case, and just use the bikeshare for one offs. I've never used a GoBike, but are those prices real & what are the typical usage patterns? Edit: I see, there are monthly and yearly plans that make it much more competitive with ownership. Great!
- samfisher83 7y ago
  You can get monthly membership and it's free to take trips.
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    There’s also a subsidy for low-income riders. I have my own bike, but it’s nice to hop on for a quick errand or if I’m going somewhere sketchy where I don’t want to leave my personal bike out.
  - superseeplus 7y ago
    Citibike in NYC (also operated by Lyft) costs $2 per ride for using an ebike. And that is if you are already a member. Non members pay $5. There is no membership allowing unlimited ebike usage.
    - shereadsthenews 7y ago
      In SF for whatever reason there is no surcharge for the electric bikes
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  I have the annual membership. It's dirt cheap and the marginal cost is none. The day passes and single rides are intended for visitors.
- umeshunni 7y ago
  The last time I renewed, the annual membership was <$100 I decided to take the membership and use the bikes for short trips within SF. I figured I've saved more that $100 in Uber/Lyft rides in the last year (+ it's healthier, better for the environment etc)
bredren 7y ago
I remember Lyft partnered with Ford on self-driving, but does that have anything to do with Lyft choosing to take this over? Bike shares seems outside the core-competency of Lyft. Is it simply for marketing? I'm confused why the company would take this on as part of some larger strategic plan.
- sparky_z 7y ago
  "Go-bikes" were never run by Ford. It was a start-up called Motivate[0] that licensed the Ford brand for their bikeshare service. Lyft bought Motivate last year, and is just now getting around to the rebrand. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivate_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivate_(company)
  - throwaway287391 7y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out -- I had no idea and it's really surprising to me. Why did they license the Ford brand? Is the Ford name really that attractive to the Bay Area bikesharing market? Would've expected it would hurt more than help, if anything. Is it just: all brand recognition is good brand recognition?
    - stingrae 7y ago
      I think Ford paid to have it put there (as advertising). In NYC it is Citi Bike share as advertising for CitiBank.
      - throwaway287391 7y ago
        Oops, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you.
    - idunno246 7y ago
      its more that ford sponsored it. ford bought in around the same time they bought chariot i think. it seemed like they were just testing out a bunch of things related to transportation
ghoji 7y ago
A bike share being owned and operated by one of the biggest threats to cyclist safety is, well, it’s something.
- hawaiian 7y ago
  I see it as a good thing that will shine more light on cyclist safety.
- jameslevy 7y ago
  I would guess from my own experience as a frequent ride hailing passenger that Lyft/Uber drivers are less of a threat to cyclist safety on average than regular drivers.
  - shereadsthenews 7y ago
    Can't imagine how you formed that impression. TNC drivers love to perform the "Crazy Ivan" and they love to double-park in bike lanes.
  - kevincrane 7y ago
    Except when they swerve and park in bike lanes.
  - kcorbitt 7y ago
    I bike daily in San Francisco and that hasn't been my experience. My mental heuristics for risk to injury for me are, from least to most dangerous: - City buses. Slow and predictable. - Normal passenger vehicles. - Lyft/Uber. Will often swerve right in front of me while they're pulling over. (Presumably because they're watching their phone to make sure they're dropping off in the right spot, or watching the sidewalk looking for their next fare.) - Large pickup trucks. Not sure if it's the ride height that gives you the illusion you're further away or just a personality trait of their drivers, but a disproportionate number of my close calls are pickup trucks blasting by at high speed with no clearance. - Old beater cars with dents/stuff falling off. These drivers can behave very unpredictably.
  - technotony 7y ago
tectonic 7y ago
My wife and I use Ford GoBike every day and are quite happy with it. It's probably the reason we still don't have a car.
ravenstine 7y ago
That is until Lyft gets bored with it and axes it like Lime did to their bikes. Now my town is vacant if any rental bikes, despite their promise of fixing our "last-mile" problem to our train station.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  The nice thing about the contract is they are obligated to provide the service.
- bsder 7y ago
  > That is until Lyft gets bored with it and axes it like Lime did to their bikes. These seem to be be "docked". Wasn't Lime's problem that they were "dockless" and wound up being trash everywhere?
  - baby 7y ago
    I can't read this seriously knowing that cars take 1000000x more space
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      That's because cars are way more useful. They have a much longer range than bikes or scooters, are fueled more easily, carry cargo, transport multiple people at once, can run on both gas and electric, have air conditioning, stereo systems, safety features, etc. Bicycles are obsolete in every way and aren't practical for most commuters. You bet cars take up 1000000x the space of bikes.
      - esoterica 7y ago
        This reeks of suburban provincialism. Bikes are more useful in an urban context. On an individual level they are faster because they don’t get stuck in traffic and you don’t have to pay for parking. On a macro level cars are fundamentally incompatible with density because there is literally not enough space in a city for everyone to store and drive their cars.
badusername 7y ago
Ford GoBike have to be some of the worst, most ill-maintained bikes in the city. The product quality is terrible compared to the competition - half the bikes have mechanical issues, the electrical bikes were hazardous. I was an early subscriber given how cheap it was, but I often struggled to find a bike that worked.
microdrum 7y ago
Another nail in the coffin of Bird?
- stephencoyner 7y ago
  I don't think so. On average, bike share trips are much longer than scooter trips (~1-3 for bikes vs ~0-1 for scooters) and e-bike trips are even further. With this in mind, I think it makes more sense to see scooter competition as walking than bikes or e-bikes. Can't find the source I read this in originally, but will keep looking.
alpb 7y ago
I was in SF this week and had a chance to try this out. They have 0 (zero) e-bikes despite their app has a column to list the count. They also force you to pick up the bike from designated racks and drop-off at designated racks which is a pain in the ass. On the other hand JUMP has a fully e-bike fleet, but bikes were impossible to come by. I parked a JUMP bike that had full battery. An hour later I came back and the app didn’t let me unlock it (reason unknown to me). It seemed like things are really glitchy. I found the entire bikeshare situation in SF to be miserable, in brief. Scooters are no different. It’s funny to see that Seattle were like this 4 years ago. Now LIME and JUMP dominate Seattle with fleets entirely consisting of E-bikes. They are super ubiquitous, and there’s no shortage of them, no “glitches”, and no need to park them at a designated rack.
- holy_city 7y ago
  >They also force you to pick up the bike from designated racks and drop-off at designated racks which is a pain in the ass. I mean it's pain in the ass when I have to move the crap from the front steps of my building or out of the driveway because people aren't courteous their dockless transport widgets. I'm alright walking a little ways to dock a bike/scooter as a user, but I'm firmly against any company or city that lets users dump crap on the streets without penalties. It's littering.
  - alpb 7y ago
    Believe it or not, this doesn't happen in Seattle. Sure there was a month or two when people were treating bikes like shit, because they were new, but now the conventions have been established and people are more respectful. What you're worried about happens rarely in Seattle. Assuming you live in SF, I'm not sure why you're not worried more about the people peeing on your wall, tossing their shoes or random garbage on your driveway more. Bikes being dropped off at a public sidewalk sounds like less of a problem than these.
    - holy_city 7y ago
      I'm in Los Angeles where we have Lime scooters all over the place. It's not rare, it's been a daily occurrence. I can care about more than one thing at a time. Human refuse in my streets is a problem I deal with, and so is dockless transit.
robotburrito 7y ago
Why doesn't the city just run it's own scooter/bike share? Seems like it would exist in the same domain as things like MUNI and in theory would allow the city to make a profit instead of LYFT/UBER etc.
- streblo 7y ago
  Because they can let Uber/Lyft/et al do it, charge them a tax, and have none of the operational overhead or expenditures.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  Motivate isn’t exactly rolling in money. It’s essentially a non-profit.
- sushid 7y ago
  Clearly you haven't taken the MUNI on a regular basis. The last thing we need is an incompetent government agency taking over yet another method of transportation.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Some cities do. Denver has Denver B-cycle, and they are giving out 5280 free annual passes this year (not sure if they do this every year). The non-free option is still a fraction of the costs of the for-profit private companies. There are also a plethora of e-scooter brands though and I see them more often than bikes. Boston has Bluebikes (e: seems like it's a partnership with Motivate?), also pretty cheap. A lot of people I knew in Boston had some kind of discounted rate through their employer where they got unlimited complimentary 30-minute rides.
joering2 7y ago
I recently read that Uber/Lyft keeps even 75% of money for themselves. I wonder if there is an opportunity for third large ride-sharing app where business model would be based on bidding and company would keep much lower fee, just to cover overhead. So you want to go from point A to B, all local drivers are contacted and they have 45 seconds to bid who would charge less. Requester would see how much sorted by less $ and also ratings so he/she can chose someone more expensive but with better ratings. Such model would kill Uber/Lyft overnight - they would not be able to adjust to that model because then their stocks would be cut down 95%. However, it is a win-to-win situation to both drivers and ride-takers - drivers get paid more and more stays in their pocket, while takers can chose if the ride is affordable, and at over 50% cheaper than what Lyft/Uber charge, it sure would be!
- thehappypm 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted because this is both a bad business idea, and a bad product idea. Uber and Lyft have proven that drivers and riders don't want to think particularly hard. They want a magic button that either a) makes a car show up or b) feeds them customers. As for the business side, there's no good reason to think that this would even cut costs on Uber's side -- they still need to maintain all of their lobbying costs, their server and engineer costs to maintain the bidding app, their marketing costs, etc.
truebosko 7y ago
I pay $50 CAD a year for bike share across Toronto. This seems pretty expensive, to be honest.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  How are you paying $50/year? Bike Share Toronto costs CAD$100/year. If you took advantage of their Presto card discount, that used to be 50% off for the first year of membership, recently reduced to 30% off the first year: https://bikesharetoronto.com/presto/ https://bikesharetoronto.com/presto/ Bike Share Toronto is heavily subsidized by the city and Ontario, and operates at a loss: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2019/02/28/bike-share-toronto-gets-75-million-expansion-despite-operating-losses.html https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2019/02/28/bike-share...
- campl3r 7y ago
  I pay 39€ a year for unlimited 30 minute rides in about 8 German cities. electric is extra and has sadly a very limited availability.
vajaya 7y ago
I wonder why bike sharing is still a thing in business world. Hasn't this business venture been proved to be a fiasco in China, where user base is larger in magnitude, operation cost is residual and virtually no regulation friction, compared to the u.s.? Why do lyft, uber and others think it is viable(profitable) in the u.s.? Another thing beyond me is although the business model/development of this kind seems to be bound to fail, why they are still chased by enormous amount of capital. My cynical suspicion is these so call tech start ups are just instrument of a grand new ponzi scheme in which a bunch of investors use borrowed money(from banks, insurance company and the likes) to set up a start up and increase the value of it(manufacture hype to justify the inflation along the way) and the sell to public, which is mainly pension funds, 401k, government backed institutions and so one, that is, ordinary folks. I hope someone would correct me and shed some light on this matter.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Tech companies going public will be the credit default swaps of the 20's, mark my words.
- woodruffw 7y ago
  My 0.02c as a Citi Bike (NYC's bikeshare) subscriber: I wouldn't be surprised if there's a modest profit to be made in bike sharing, at least in NYC. I know quite a few people with a yearly subscription (either personally or via their employer), and I would consider paying for one personally now that I've experienced their convenience. I don't know how much money Citi Bike/Motivate actually makes here, although AFAIK they don't receive any public subsidies (other than free use of public space). OTOH, I don't think that the e-bike/scooter companies will ever be profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if the people running those companies are equally cynical.
  - vajaya 7y ago
    I don't have their unit economy data, but I'm still (stubbornly) skeptical of the profitability of bike sharing. One reason is the market depth, in the sense that most of the time it's just young, educated and often bourgeois people in metropolis, which is a tiny proportion of people, who ride bike for purposes other than recreational.

143 points by mikhuang 7y ago

After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-lawsuit-san-francisco-dockless-docked-transportation https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...

kjksf 7y ago
As is their right. The city fucked up hugely by making an exclusive deal with Ford/Motive (acquired by Lyft). If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at SF government. The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. It was a bad contract but SF Government does many bad things, like repressive zoning and banning scooters. Go vote them out of the office.
- vkou 7y ago
  > The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Actually, contracts get broken all the time, and the only recourse you can get for that sort of thing is a lawsuit. This is by design.
- delfinom 7y ago
  >The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Technically you can if you wrote a clause allowing it or other conditionals. But we don't know the full contract and it's up to a judge to interpret it seems.
pensketch 7y ago
You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bikes only' while Lyft is saying it was for a Bike Sharing Program, which could include docked or dockless bikes. Lyft does a good job describing what 'Bike sharing' is in that document so it will be up to the courts to decide if they're right. - “Bike sharing” is a public biking system concept that allows customers to rent a bike on a short-term basis from one section of a city and leave it in another section of the city that same day. - The Term Sheet provided, among other terms, that Motivate was to be the exclusive operator of any bike share system in the Participating Cities for at least ten (10) years. The Term Sheet provided (emphasis added): “During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.”
- Larrikin 7y ago
  What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?
  - praneshp 7y ago
    That's the same as "What if I don't care about killing other people and just want the most space for myself". A contract is a contract.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Unconscionable contracts, especially when one of the parties is a taxing jurisdiction, have no ethical force. I'm not certain that this was an unconscionable contract, but you have to at least make the argument. What consideration did the people of this municipality receive in exchange for this encumbrance placed on their liberty?
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        I read the contract as being about the use of publicly owned space for the docks. That seems more like a municipal corporation making a stupid agreement than it does an encumbrance on anyone's liberty. Rent private space for your bike racks...
        closeparen 7y ago
        Which might make sense in the city’s view that it is a deal about docks, not about all bikeshare.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      No, a contract is not simply a contract. Contracts are only enforced when a court agrees they are enforceable. A court can declare a contract unenforceable for a variety of reasons, such as if it was ill-formed, one side was overwhelmingly more powerful, or the contract is against public policy (such as non-compete agreements in California). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...
egh 7y ago
They removed the electric bikes only because of a safety issue. The non-electric bikes are still available. I haven't read anything about a relation to this event with a dockless bikeshare expansion.
baby 7y ago
I wouldn't defend the SFMTA They make SF objectively worse by being pro car (no lime, bad public transports)

iso1337 7y ago

I like these commute options that make it easier to get around but starting at $2/ride seems a bit high. If I were to use this twice daily for 200 days a year, I'd be looking at $800/year! I'd rather buy a bike in that case, and just use the bikeshare for one offs. I've never used a GoBike, but are those prices real & what are the typical usage patterns? Edit: I see, there are monthly and yearly plans that make it much more competitive with ownership. Great!

samfisher83 7y ago
You can get monthly membership and it's free to take trips.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  There’s also a subsidy for low-income riders. I have my own bike, but it’s nice to hop on for a quick errand or if I’m going somewhere sketchy where I don’t want to leave my personal bike out.
- superseeplus 7y ago
  Citibike in NYC (also operated by Lyft) costs $2 per ride for using an ebike. And that is if you are already a member. Non members pay $5. There is no membership allowing unlimited ebike usage.
  - shereadsthenews 7y ago
    In SF for whatever reason there is no surcharge for the electric bikes
shereadsthenews 7y ago
I have the annual membership. It's dirt cheap and the marginal cost is none. The day passes and single rides are intended for visitors.
umeshunni 7y ago
The last time I renewed, the annual membership was <$100 I decided to take the membership and use the bikes for short trips within SF. I figured I've saved more that $100 in Uber/Lyft rides in the last year (+ it's healthier, better for the environment etc)

bredren 7y ago

I remember Lyft partnered with Ford on self-driving, but does that have anything to do with Lyft choosing to take this over? Bike shares seems outside the core-competency of Lyft. Is it simply for marketing? I'm confused why the company would take this on as part of some larger strategic plan.

sparky_z 7y ago
"Go-bikes" were never run by Ford. It was a start-up called Motivate[0] that licensed the Ford brand for their bikeshare service. Lyft bought Motivate last year, and is just now getting around to the rebrand. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivate_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivate_(company)
- throwaway287391 7y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out -- I had no idea and it's really surprising to me. Why did they license the Ford brand? Is the Ford name really that attractive to the Bay Area bikesharing market? Would've expected it would hurt more than help, if anything. Is it just: all brand recognition is good brand recognition?
  - stingrae 7y ago
    I think Ford paid to have it put there (as advertising). In NYC it is Citi Bike share as advertising for CitiBank.
    - throwaway287391 7y ago
      Oops, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you.
  - idunno246 7y ago
    its more that ford sponsored it. ford bought in around the same time they bought chariot i think. it seemed like they were just testing out a bunch of things related to transportation

ghoji 7y ago

A bike share being owned and operated by one of the biggest threats to cyclist safety is, well, it’s something.

hawaiian 7y ago
I see it as a good thing that will shine more light on cyclist safety.
jameslevy 7y ago
I would guess from my own experience as a frequent ride hailing passenger that Lyft/Uber drivers are less of a threat to cyclist safety on average than regular drivers.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  Can't imagine how you formed that impression. TNC drivers love to perform the "Crazy Ivan" and they love to double-park in bike lanes.
- kevincrane 7y ago
  Except when they swerve and park in bike lanes.
- kcorbitt 7y ago
  I bike daily in San Francisco and that hasn't been my experience. My mental heuristics for risk to injury for me are, from least to most dangerous: - City buses. Slow and predictable. - Normal passenger vehicles. - Lyft/Uber. Will often swerve right in front of me while they're pulling over. (Presumably because they're watching their phone to make sure they're dropping off in the right spot, or watching the sidewalk looking for their next fare.) - Large pickup trucks. Not sure if it's the ride height that gives you the illusion you're further away or just a personality trait of their drivers, but a disproportionate number of my close calls are pickup trucks blasting by at high speed with no clearance. - Old beater cars with dents/stuff falling off. These drivers can behave very unpredictably.
- technotony 7y ago

tectonic 7y ago

My wife and I use Ford GoBike every day and are quite happy with it. It's probably the reason we still don't have a car.

ravenstine 7y ago

That is until Lyft gets bored with it and axes it like Lime did to their bikes. Now my town is vacant if any rental bikes, despite their promise of fixing our "last-mile" problem to our train station.

shereadsthenews 7y ago
The nice thing about the contract is they are obligated to provide the service.
bsder 7y ago
> That is until Lyft gets bored with it and axes it like Lime did to their bikes. These seem to be be "docked". Wasn't Lime's problem that they were "dockless" and wound up being trash everywhere?
- baby 7y ago
  I can't read this seriously knowing that cars take 1000000x more space
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    That's because cars are way more useful. They have a much longer range than bikes or scooters, are fueled more easily, carry cargo, transport multiple people at once, can run on both gas and electric, have air conditioning, stereo systems, safety features, etc. Bicycles are obsolete in every way and aren't practical for most commuters. You bet cars take up 1000000x the space of bikes.
    - esoterica 7y ago
      This reeks of suburban provincialism. Bikes are more useful in an urban context. On an individual level they are faster because they don’t get stuck in traffic and you don’t have to pay for parking. On a macro level cars are fundamentally incompatible with density because there is literally not enough space in a city for everyone to store and drive their cars.

badusername 7y ago

Ford GoBike have to be some of the worst, most ill-maintained bikes in the city. The product quality is terrible compared to the competition - half the bikes have mechanical issues, the electrical bikes were hazardous. I was an early subscriber given how cheap it was, but I often struggled to find a bike that worked.

microdrum 7y ago

Another nail in the coffin of Bird?

stephencoyner 7y ago
I don't think so. On average, bike share trips are much longer than scooter trips (~1-3 for bikes vs ~0-1 for scooters) and e-bike trips are even further. With this in mind, I think it makes more sense to see scooter competition as walking than bikes or e-bikes. Can't find the source I read this in originally, but will keep looking.

alpb 7y ago

I was in SF this week and had a chance to try this out. They have 0 (zero) e-bikes despite their app has a column to list the count. They also force you to pick up the bike from designated racks and drop-off at designated racks which is a pain in the ass. On the other hand JUMP has a fully e-bike fleet, but bikes were impossible to come by. I parked a JUMP bike that had full battery. An hour later I came back and the app didn’t let me unlock it (reason unknown to me). It seemed like things are really glitchy. I found the entire bikeshare situation in SF to be miserable, in brief. Scooters are no different. It’s funny to see that Seattle were like this 4 years ago. Now LIME and JUMP dominate Seattle with fleets entirely consisting of E-bikes. They are super ubiquitous, and there’s no shortage of them, no “glitches”, and no need to park them at a designated rack.

holy_city 7y ago
>They also force you to pick up the bike from designated racks and drop-off at designated racks which is a pain in the ass. I mean it's pain in the ass when I have to move the crap from the front steps of my building or out of the driveway because people aren't courteous their dockless transport widgets. I'm alright walking a little ways to dock a bike/scooter as a user, but I'm firmly against any company or city that lets users dump crap on the streets without penalties. It's littering.
- alpb 7y ago
  Believe it or not, this doesn't happen in Seattle. Sure there was a month or two when people were treating bikes like shit, because they were new, but now the conventions have been established and people are more respectful. What you're worried about happens rarely in Seattle. Assuming you live in SF, I'm not sure why you're not worried more about the people peeing on your wall, tossing their shoes or random garbage on your driveway more. Bikes being dropped off at a public sidewalk sounds like less of a problem than these.
  - holy_city 7y ago
    I'm in Los Angeles where we have Lime scooters all over the place. It's not rare, it's been a daily occurrence. I can care about more than one thing at a time. Human refuse in my streets is a problem I deal with, and so is dockless transit.

robotburrito 7y ago

Why doesn't the city just run it's own scooter/bike share? Seems like it would exist in the same domain as things like MUNI and in theory would allow the city to make a profit instead of LYFT/UBER etc.

streblo 7y ago
Because they can let Uber/Lyft/et al do it, charge them a tax, and have none of the operational overhead or expenditures.
shereadsthenews 7y ago
Motivate isn’t exactly rolling in money. It’s essentially a non-profit.
sushid 7y ago
Clearly you haven't taken the MUNI on a regular basis. The last thing we need is an incompetent government agency taking over yet another method of transportation.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
Some cities do. Denver has Denver B-cycle, and they are giving out 5280 free annual passes this year (not sure if they do this every year). The non-free option is still a fraction of the costs of the for-profit private companies. There are also a plethora of e-scooter brands though and I see them more often than bikes. Boston has Bluebikes (e: seems like it's a partnership with Motivate?), also pretty cheap. A lot of people I knew in Boston had some kind of discounted rate through their employer where they got unlimited complimentary 30-minute rides.

joering2 7y ago

I recently read that Uber/Lyft keeps even 75% of money for themselves. I wonder if there is an opportunity for third large ride-sharing app where business model would be based on bidding and company would keep much lower fee, just to cover overhead. So you want to go from point A to B, all local drivers are contacted and they have 45 seconds to bid who would charge less. Requester would see how much sorted by less $ and also ratings so he/she can chose someone more expensive but with better ratings. Such model would kill Uber/Lyft overnight - they would not be able to adjust to that model because then their stocks would be cut down 95%. However, it is a win-to-win situation to both drivers and ride-takers - drivers get paid more and more stays in their pocket, while takers can chose if the ride is affordable, and at over 50% cheaper than what Lyft/Uber charge, it sure would be!

thehappypm 7y ago
You're getting downvoted because this is both a bad business idea, and a bad product idea. Uber and Lyft have proven that drivers and riders don't want to think particularly hard. They want a magic button that either a) makes a car show up or b) feeds them customers. As for the business side, there's no good reason to think that this would even cut costs on Uber's side -- they still need to maintain all of their lobbying costs, their server and engineer costs to maintain the bidding app, their marketing costs, etc.

truebosko 7y ago

I pay $50 CAD a year for bike share across Toronto. This seems pretty expensive, to be honest.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
How are you paying $50/year? Bike Share Toronto costs CAD$100/year. If you took advantage of their Presto card discount, that used to be 50% off for the first year of membership, recently reduced to 30% off the first year: https://bikesharetoronto.com/presto/ https://bikesharetoronto.com/presto/ Bike Share Toronto is heavily subsidized by the city and Ontario, and operates at a loss: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2019/02/28/bike-share-toronto-gets-75-million-expansion-despite-operating-losses.html https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2019/02/28/bike-share...
campl3r 7y ago
I pay 39€ a year for unlimited 30 minute rides in about 8 German cities. electric is extra and has sadly a very limited availability.

vajaya 7y ago

I wonder why bike sharing is still a thing in business world. Hasn't this business venture been proved to be a fiasco in China, where user base is larger in magnitude, operation cost is residual and virtually no regulation friction, compared to the u.s.? Why do lyft, uber and others think it is viable(profitable) in the u.s.? Another thing beyond me is although the business model/development of this kind seems to be bound to fail, why they are still chased by enormous amount of capital. My cynical suspicion is these so call tech start ups are just instrument of a grand new ponzi scheme in which a bunch of investors use borrowed money(from banks, insurance company and the likes) to set up a start up and increase the value of it(manufacture hype to justify the inflation along the way) and the sell to public, which is mainly pension funds, 401k, government backed institutions and so one, that is, ordinary folks. I hope someone would correct me and shed some light on this matter.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
My thoughts exactly. Tech companies going public will be the credit default swaps of the 20's, mark my words.
woodruffw 7y ago
My 0.02c as a Citi Bike (NYC's bikeshare) subscriber: I wouldn't be surprised if there's a modest profit to be made in bike sharing, at least in NYC. I know quite a few people with a yearly subscription (either personally or via their employer), and I would consider paying for one personally now that I've experienced their convenience. I don't know how much money Citi Bike/Motivate actually makes here, although AFAIK they don't receive any public subsidies (other than free use of public space). OTOH, I don't think that the e-bike/scooter companies will ever be profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if the people running those companies are equally cynical.
- vajaya 7y ago
  I don't have their unit economy data, but I'm still (stubbornly) skeptical of the profitability of bike sharing. One reason is the market depth, in the sense that most of the time it's just young, educated and often bourgeois people in metropolis, which is a tiny proportion of people, who ride bike for purposes other than recreational.