Bike Sharing Systems Aren't Trying to Peddle for Profit

Reader Comments
Back to article

I think it's super! Used the system in Copenhagen, Denmark and loved the quieter streets, less stress in traffic, no need for parking, cleaner air and healthy benefits (No fat people there).
Public transportation is about spending less on road repairs, traffic and parking enforcement, expensive and unsightly parking lots, encouraging folks to live close to work - saving then also on gasoline, urban sprawl etc.... There are savings that are rarely counted when looking at costs....

DeeToo of SC 6:38PM June 14, 2012

Automobile drivers should be assessed a tax to be applied toward health (to protect against respiratory or cancer, per inhalation) or life insurance for cyclists (surviving family members).

cynthia anderson-bennekaa of AZ 6:28PM May 01, 2012

BikeShare is one of the best financial decisions a city can make. Why do you think so many cities are replicating it? Here's why:
1. The operating deficit, and even the capital costs, is so small as to be almost a rounding error in a large city's budget. It is about the cost of building one (yes, one) new street intersection! What a bargain!
2. By widening the ring of users around transit stations, it saves the city from having to provide new transit service (subway, bus) to those areas -- something that typically costs in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. Your points about the public health benefits are contradictory. If bikeshare allows people in a 2 mile ring to get to transit -- as opposed to the 1 mile ring for pedestrians -- than you are adding all those people who can get the benefit of exercise. That extra mile is NEW public health benefit gain, not replacement.
4. Just because public health benefits are "difficult to measure" doesn't mean they don't exist.

Rob of NY 11:29AM April 26, 2012

Come on, get real. Roads for private driving ALWAYS run a deficit--according to Texas DOT, in that car-crazy state roads pay back only 16 to 40% of their building and maintenance costs through gas taxes, license fees, etc. It's pretty much the same throughout the US and Canada.
Why ask public bikeshare (or public transit) to make a profit when cities are subsidizing drivers' lifestyle choices?--choices that take huge areas of land off the tax rolls fro roads, require massive police presence, rescue crews available at all times, and harm watersheds and public health.
You can read more, if you're interested at http://www.sustainablecitynews.com/rr69.html

Richard Risemberg of CA 10:14AM April 26, 2012

All transportation needs to be publicly subsidized. Bikesharing is relatively cheap, and it is great for the user. My wife and I spent a weekend in Montreal, and we had a great time getting around on their public bikes. I'm thrilled that a bikeshare program is coming to my town, and I am very happy to have my tax dollars helping to pay for it.

eric of MA 9:35AM April 22, 2012

There is no transportation system that doesn't require subsidy. Not highways, not airlines, not shipping, not transit - none of them. The Romans understood subsidizing transportation as an economic imperative. The founders of this country also understood it. We should be subsidizing the heck out of any mode that can move a lot of people with relatively tiny capital costs and even lower operating costs.

jim of PA 12:51PM April 21, 2012

From the example in DC, the amount of subsidy needed to run the system is tiny compared to roads or transit. If you look at bikeshare in terms of it's ability to expand accessibility (by expanding transit catchment areas & providing direct routes between areas) compared to the cost of similar accessibility improvements through road expansion or transit expansion, there is no comparison. It's basically free. That is why is spreading like wildfire across the US and the world.

Jacob of NY 6:56PM April 19, 2012

The majority of funding for public streets comes from the general fund (mostly sales taxes and property taxes). No reason that public transit and bike share systems should be funded any differently. They are all part of a city's transportation system. Bicycles and buses reduce the need for more (and very expensive) roads and highways.

John of AL 7:55PM April 18, 2012

The article is right with regards to large, kiosk based programs that require significant capex. However, there are new options coming which provide a much lower cost of entry with more affordable bikes and no kiosks. The result is more bikes with better distribution. These "deployed" systems will allow users to take the bike for any length of time. They employ integrated locking systems to allow the customer to lock it up anywhere and return it when they are ready. Perfect for campus applications, where costs face even more intense scrutiny. As always technology will find a way.

Commuter of RI 9:45AM April 18, 2012

Moskowitz is right. Since when is a transportation system supposed to turn a profit? The highway system doesn't turn a profit either. Transportation systems enable the rest of the economy to run smoothly.

Michael H. of VA 3:01AM April 18, 2012