urbanMSP

Has anyone heard if Nice Ride has evaluated pedal-assist bike share? Seems like there is potential to get persons to ride who normally won't. http://betterbikeshare.org/2016/03/07/b ... ic-assist/

The metro is already pretty flat, not sure how much increased revenue potential this market would open up. Plus on top of that Nice Ride does purposefully want to use slower bikes that are not geared towards SPEED.

Although I'd admit it be SUPER fun having a pedal-assist bike program that was super smart, where you could earn points/rewards for charging the bike batteries up for other users. I always thought instead of paying to go to they gym I should get paid to burn off that belly fat.

Edina is looking to test/pilot a dockless bike share system, and is currently seeking feedback from residents on pros & cons, potential locations, who would use it, etc.

(Not sure if it this belongs under Nice Ride Minnesota, or if maybe this should be renamed more generically to Bike Share, or if this should be put in Biking Infrastructure topic.)

Given the reputation of dockless bike share as creating clutter, I kind of doubt it will be very popular with Edina constituents. Personally I think dockless bikes are a solution in search of a problem--docking systems work great here in Montreal where there are loads of docks (not coincidentally, Montreal's system was the first by the company that did Nice Ride and lots of other systems in North America). They're simpler to use and you don't wind up with so many lost/abandoned/destroyed bikes since the dock acts as a containment measure. They also have a more clearly demonstrated financial model.

The only thing dockless really solves is a lack of political will to build enough docks, particularly when it means surrendering a street parking spot here or there for a dock (the horror!). As we've seen in loads of other projects, compromises made to transit projects in response to "but where will they park?" are usually not compromises worth making.

The problem that dockless solves is that docks are really expensive so if you can instead spend that money on even more bikes, that's a win win!

The problem that dockless solves is that docks are really expensive so if you can instead spend that money on even more bikes, that's a win win!

True, but they should do a hybrid. Have "dockless bikes" but require users to lock them onto official bike parking spaces, such as bike racks city signs or private businesses bike racks during the duration of usings that businesses services. I think that is a compromise, we don't need dockless bikes that can be moved or left blocking sidewalks or streets.

anybody signing up must be forced to watch a short tutorial video explaining the rules.

Plus every existing nice ride station location should be installed with a permanent bike parking lot to accommodate these bikes AND to accommodate personally owned bikes. Once they are ready to phase out the docked bikes.

Be it a larger onstreet lot such as:


Or a larger lot near a parksuch as:



We need to get more serious about bike parking for our bike share programs and not go crazy and let dockless biking take over the city! Bike parking is going to become an epidemic in the city with more people using the bike sharing and being encouraged to get out and buy their own bike and start biking themselves.




...Cause it's not very Minnesotan Nice...

The problem that dockless solves is that docks are really expensive so if you can instead spend that money on even more bikes, that's a win win!

The thing is, I'm not sure "lots more bikes + no permanent owners for those bikes + no designated temporary homes for those bikes" is going to add up to a win in the mind of your average property owner--doubly so in Edina.

The metro is already pretty flat

But certain parts aren't, especially in St. Paul with the combo of bluffs and Lowertown. i think there is a lot of potential to get folks who are out of shape on an e-bike.

Like it or not, dockless bike share is coming. Nice Ride is working through the process of getting absorbed by Motivate as we speak, St. Paul is looking to release an RFP for providers in the next month or two, and IIRC LimeBike has already gotten permission to bring bikes to Golden Valley.

Docked bike share costs so much more that it really can't compete, at least without extensive government subsidy which isn't going to be forthcoming in a world where dockless providers are promising a zero-subsidy service.

I've heard stories of the old streetcar lines stopping at the Minneapolis - St. Paul border, and making you transfer to a different streetcar to continue on your way. Very excited to have that experience with bikes.

Maybe they’ll monetize it: roaming fees.

I've heard stories of the old streetcar lines stopping at the Minneapolis - St. Paul border, and making you transfer to a different streetcar to continue on your way. Very excited to have that experience with bikes.

In a different political climate, we'd grant the Met Council the power to negotiate one bike sharing agreement for the whole urban area.

In a different political climate, we'd grant the Met Council the power to negotiate one bike sharing agreement for the whole urban area.

It's true that it makes the most sense to have a metro-wide system like MetroTransit, but it appears that cities that have done that with their bike share (D.C., NY, Chicago) are allowing multiple bikeshare players to come in at the same time and compete.
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/ca ... ty/506929/

Is Minneapolis or St. Paul really going to limit it to one operator? It makes sense to me to let the market run here and see which company can provide the best service and coverage. Either one would emerge while the others struggled or the city can just pick the one it likes best.

Unlike multiple different docking systems, different dockless bikes wouldn't have a compatibility issue between starting and ending locations. But being able to cross between MPLS and StP is important. I still think StP going it alone could give it an advantage over MPLS without the anchor of maintaining a docking system (stipulated by NiceRide).

Apple partnered with Ito World to bring to Maps locating nearby bike share stations in 176 services in 179 cities.

https://beta.techcrunch.com/2018/03/12/ ... -stations/

St. Paul included, but not Minneapolis. Huh!

Apple partnered with Ito World to bring to Maps locating nearby bike share stations in 176 services in 179 cities.
…
St. Paul included, but not Minneapolis. Huh!

Payback for St. Paul described as a neighborhood of Mpls in some best-of article, lately?

Actually, typing “Bike Sharing” in Apple Maps just outside Mpls borders shows the nearest nICE RIDE (where* do they get that capitalization from?!) stations in Mpls, along with their phone number and web link.

*Looking at Nice Ride’s web site, maybe they’re mistaking the organization’s branding (which has a lowercase-looking ‘n’ as the first letter) for its name?

Nice Ride will now be operated by Motivate. Some big changes:

• They plan to add 1,500 bikes to the system this summer.

• The new bikes will be dockless, with 500 parking zones for them.

• New lower price for single rides of $2 at a kiosk and $1 on their app. (formerly $3)

• Usage fees will also be lowered to $2 per half hour.

https://www.niceridemn.org/news/2018/07 ... _minnesota

500 parking zones, that doesn’t seem much for an entire city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New lower price for single rides of $2 at a kiosk and $1 on their app.

One of their stated missions is "equity," but how does charging people without smartphones twice the price help with that?

New lower price for single rides of $2 at a kiosk and $1 on their app.

One of their stated missions is "equity," but how does charging people without smartphones twice the price help with that?

I would disagree there, 77% of the American population owns a smartphone. I would be worried if that number was less than 50%. Also the maintenance cost for the stations is the most probable reason why it is more.

Given the near ubiquity of smartphones for anyone under about age 60, this probably doesn't pose too big of a hurdle. For many, their phone is their only personal connection to the internet. Though it would probably be wise to have some way for folks who can't afford them to perhaps get the discount.

The obvious reason they're charging a higher at-station price is that tourists and non-frequent users are almost certainly less likely to download the app. You can capture a lot more money from them this way.

I'm surprised that parking meters charge more when you use the smartphone app. It's cheaper to pay at the kiosk, even in cash. I wonder what their reasoning is.