Do you think the new Bike Transit system will work? (Cincinnati: live, cost of)

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

BINGO! I actually work in a tourism office in downtown. We've seen an average of 1200 people per weekend all summer. There are a LOT of tourists in this city. I also personally witnessed at least two dozen of them rent RedBikes on Saturday alone. That's $200 made at only one station in 5 hours.

The weather has been almost ideal for the inaugural opening of the Bike Transit system. The proof in the pudding will come when the weather turns nasty, which it will.

I am trying to figure out why the bike system should be more attractive than a bus, and I can't identify anything other than a tourist may get a more close up and personal view of the city. But as an everyday transit system, particularly commuting to/from work, no way the bus wins hands down. It can protect you from the elements, big plus.

I believe this past weekend was an event weekend, a small gathering called Oktoberfest. I read where they state some 600,000 people came into the City over a 3-day period. Out of that mob there should be a few people who think renting a bike and peddling around town is a good idea.

[CarryOn]

I was in Cincy during Oktoberfest; at the Lagerhouse, on 5th St, and at Rhinegeist in OTR. I lost count of the number of Red Bikes I saw rolling by. I actually got a little heated at one point with a couple of young women who were riding/racing them on a sidewalk and damn near ran me down.

I was also in Washington Park last night and walked over to Halfcut and back and saw two out for a ride.

It's been reported that first-week were shattered; nearly 1,800 rents (the goal was 1,000). They've also gotten over 200 annual memberships already, and that sounds good.

I can think of one big advantage over riding the bus - convenience. Buses run on a schedule, and there can be quite a bit of waiting around. Red bikes are right there, though - just grab one and go, no waiting (assuming there's a bike available, of course).

[SWOH]

^CarryOn nailed it. Buses don't have the flexibility of a bike.

I'd also add that buses inherently aren't tourist-friendly (what tourist really wants to figure out the city bus schedule?) and they aren't frequent.

One key to why the Streetcar is important is because it will offer frequent service. One line that runs near constantly in a small, densely-populated and well-traveled loop. Buses, unless it is a BRT line, can't really offer this kind of service.

But what happens in winter is also a good point. My guess is the vast majority of people using them in winter will be residents utilizing their $80/year payment to be on the system. I personally see some safety concerns if the roads and bike lanes are ice-covered, for their sake I hope they don't allow bikes to leave the hubs when there is bad winter weather.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by OHKID

^CarryOn nailed it. Buses don't have the flexibility of a bike.

I'd also add that buses inherently aren't tourist-friendly (what tourist really wants to figure out the city bus schedule?) and they aren't frequent.

One key to why the Streetcar is important is because it will offer frequent service. One line that runs near constantly in a small, densely-populated and well-traveled loop. Buses, unless it is a BRT line, can't really offer this kind of service.

But what happens in winter is also a good point. My guess is the vast majority of people using them in winter will be residents utilizing their $80/year payment to be on the system. I personally see some safety concerns if the roads and bike lanes are ice-covered, for their sake I hope they don't allow bikes to leave the hubs when there is bad winter weather.

I understood the Bike System was to be considered an honest to goodness transit system, something people used fo commute to/from work, etc. Then all I hear about are tourists.

If it is nothing more than a tourist attraction then don't worry about it. It either will or will not make enough money to pay its operating costs, at which time it will be continued or shut down.

Who cares if buses are tourist friendly? What they need to be is resident friendly, both cost and effectiveness. The people who live here need a transit system to satisfy their daily needs

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

I understood the Bike System was to be considered an honest to goodness transit system, something people used fo commute to/from work, etc. Then all I hear about are tourists.

If it is nothing more than a tourist attraction then don't worry about it. It either will or will not make enough money to pay its operating costs, at which time it will be continued or shut down.

Who cares if buses are tourist friendly? What they need to be is resident friendly, both cost and effectiveness. The people who live here need a transit system to satisfy their daily needs

Correct. Recreational facilities need to be entertaining. What is entertaining about a very heavy, poorly designed bike? I don't ride anymore, but the mere prospect of having to pedal that little red tank up Vine St. to Clifton makes me want to puke.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

I understood the Bike System was to be considered an honest to goodness transit system, something people used fo commute to/from work, etc. Then all I hear about are tourists.

If it is nothing more than a tourist attraction then don't worry about it. It either will or will not make enough money to pay its operating costs, at which time it will be continued or shut down.

Who cares if buses are tourist friendly? What they need to be is resident friendly, both cost and effectiveness. The people who live here need a transit system to satisfy their daily needs

You asked how the system works for residents. I shared and the response was "but there won't be enough users to pay for it." So we mentioned how there will be a LOT more than residents using the system and your response is "but it was supposed to be for the residents."

The fact is that it's a more versatile system than you're giving credit for, and the volume of all groups that use the system are what pay for it. I ended up renting a RedBike three times yesterday. One of those times was actually during work, when I had to deliver a package from my office at 7th and Main to the Enquirer Building. Normally, when I have to make that run, it takes me about 30 minutes to walk there and back. Yesterday it only took about 8 minutes to get there and back. RedBike actually increased my productivity in the office. Who would have thought that would be an additional perk?

[CarryOn]

It can be for both residents and tourists. I've already emailed them asking for a small bike rack at Union Terminal or the main post office. If they'd do that, I'd use it as a commuter, to get from downtown to my office on Dalton.

We're also in the city frequently and I'd use it to go from Findlay to downtown and back as well. Park once on the street (free) near Findlay, then rent a bike to scoot down to Washington Park or downtown.

Winter - yeah, I'm sure no one is expecting great numbers in the winter, but hope that the ridership in the summer months makes up for it.

[Wilson513]

I'm the ideal user, but I hate the idea.

There is a rack on Orchard St., maybe 10 houses from my office, and one at the courthouse where I have to go at least once per week. Convenient? Yes.

[flashes1]

I actually prefer the practicality of the bike share program to the street car....and it's +$100 million less in costs. A quick 10 minute bike ride from the Banks to OTR sounds a lot better than waiting around for a street car...which gets stuck in traffic. The only benefit to the street car is I'm too plowed to ride a bike.

[Mplsite]

Originally Posted by soundofsilence82

I'm really skeptical about this. I had heard of it today, and I think it's a bad idea.

I suppose it's a way for Cincinnati to become more green, but how is one supposed to travel from point A to point B in 30 mins, in order to turn in their current bike and get a new one? It would be easier to drive or take the bus...plus, a lot cheaper.

Anybody think this is a good idea?

So, you don't know what you're talking about. I live in a mid-size Midwestern city that is a well over a decade ahead of Cincinnati as far as the biking thing goes and yes, it works, and no, it's not a good idea, it's a great idea. If you want to maximize ridership however, then bikeways such as bike lanes, boulevards or trails between each station is a must. St Paul, the Cincinnati of Upper Midwest, found out that plopping down a bike share in a downtown with only a bike lane yields a much lower percentage of users compared to a downtown full of bikeways.