Public Bikes and Private Phones
Gordon Hobbis January 16, 2008

There has been a rumbling lately about a public bicycle system. The news stories focus is on Paris which launched the new darling of bicycle sharing programs this past summer. Velib, is the programs given name and it consists of more than 10,600 bikes available at 750 stations all over the city. The program lets users swipe their credit card and take and return a bike. Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe hopes Velib will cut car traffic in the city by 40 per cent by 2020.

There are many programs out there and recently Translink has been floating the idea. I have been thinking about bike sharing programs and have been undecided about whether they are good or not. Then, a seemingly unrelated story lept from the pages of The Vancouver Sun and brought the issue into focus for me. The payphone, that iconic temple of communication that was once the saviour of stranded motorists or husbands who had lost their shopping list is nearing extinction. When was the last time you saw a pack of payphones, neatly lined up along a wall, waiting to eat up your quarters? The report stated that in Canada there are 150,000 payphones and they will be phased out at 3% a year. I think that is optomistic in the payphones favour. Video stores were quick to phase out VHS. Let’s face it old technology gets extinct fast.

How do pay phones correlate to bicycles? Well, bicycle sharing programs could be called pay bikes. Pay phones are extinct because they cost to much to maintain and almost everyone has a phone in their pocket now. Pay bikes will be expensive to maintain and the cost of a good bike is well within the reach of anyone who can afford a cellphone. Why would pay bikes work? They would work for tourists or stranded motorists but I remain sceptical if they would work for the general public. I do see a potential for something that would work though. For Paris to have over 10,000 bikes available at the swipe of a card they must have over 10,000 safe and wired bicycle locking contraptions. Cities don’t like getting things stolen, so those parking spots must be well designed. I say skip the bikes and just provide the good secure bicycle parking. Riders will glady swipe a card or phone a number for a secure bicycle lock up because it would sure be better then carrying a 10 pound lock.

I’ve decided now that I think bike sharing programs are good for tourism but that to encourage more bike trips by commuters there should be better routes and better parking. Now that I’ve made up my mind I can ponder other reasons why a bike sharing program might be implemented. It would take someone more cynical then me to suggest that this might be a power move by translink to take over the bicycle end of the transportation network. If Translink put in a bike share plan then maybe only Translink’s bikes would be allowed on buses and Skytrains. Bicycles are accounting for 6% of commuter trips now and forecasts are that this number will rise. Translink hates competition. The New Westminster Trolley Company had to satisfy them that their service was for tourism and not for another bus service on the new Sixth Street route. You’d have to have a pretty dim view of Translink to think these things. After all, Translink is allowing bikes on Skytrain sometimes and they did put bike racks on the buses that you could use in the daylight. I like what they have done in San Diego and other Califonian cities. There the municipal governments give you a cash rebate if you ride a bike. Sounds like just the plan to keep those pedals turning.

A year-long pass for the program costs $41.75, a one-day pass $1.42 and a weekly pass $7.15. On the day the program launched, 13,000 people had already bought annual passes.