[newy]

Hello HN, Euwyn here, president and co-founder of Spin. I'm 2x YC, our CEO Derrick was formerly at Lyft, and our CTO was at Disqus (YC 07). I helped to start this company in part because of my own personal annoyance with the design of "station-based" bike-share systems. Who thought that having to _find a station_, then think about whether your _destination_ had a station close-by was a good idea?

We just had a huge launch in Austin at SXSW, and just announced a deal with the City of Austin. See:

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bik...

https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-austin-5...

We're hiring for everything (city GMs, ops, engineers, GR, etc), and love hearing from people who are passionate about having this in their city. We're particularly interested in hearing from folks in SF, where we're based, where the City is considering a measure that would hamper station-less bike-share systems.

[e-mail]

[fhoffa]

I'm wondering if you are going to reply to the comment that Heath Maddox, SFMTA, left.

My only agenda here is that I want more bikes around SF, so I like your proposal - but I would also like to know what's the truth behind both parties allegations.

https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-you...

[pdx6]

My name is Mark Ballew, and I am the chair of the SFMTA Operations and Customer Service Committee (OCSC). I spoke to Heath Maddox at length at the last committee meeting [1]. No one from the public, Spin, or Bluegogo attended, but it is a public meeting.

I've been following the political battle as published in the SFexaminer for these "station-less" bike share programs to get their permits. I was originally skeptical about why the city is pushing back against these programs, because who doesn't like sharing bikes? It is a physically and environmentally healthy way to get around, not to mention very quick even with the hills in a 7x7 city. Why would the city be so bad about permitting? We have car shares in the public right away, and permitting is no problem. Is the city against these bike sharing hippies?

After talking to Heath, he convenience me that there are some serious regulatory problems with "station-less" systems like Spin.

1. In sample of similar programs around the world, the bicycles are very inexpensive. There is no clear standard for how these bicycles will be maintained in the interest of the public's safety.

2. There is no guarantee that the bikes won't be abandoned in the public right of way, as they do not need to be returned anywhere. These leaves public works to collect bikes that are left on trees, on parking meters, in the bay, on racks, or simply dumped in the middle of the sidewalk.

3. The reason why BABS is so cheap is it attempts to be equitable and non-discriminative. $88/yr is affordable for most users of the system. Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in poorer areas of the city?

Spin's blog leaves a bad taste in that they are bashing BABS, but what is worse is the blog fails to mention that the system is about to more than double in size. New docks and bikes are already on order, according to Heath, and the stations removed from the south bay will be used to expand existing stations in SF and San Jose.

I don't object to station-less bike sharing, I object to these companies not working with our city to create a safe, equitable, and sustainable program starting from day 1. I hope to see fewer puff blogs like this, and more work with public agencies.

[1] https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-...

[brenschluss]

> Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in poorer areas of the city?

This is a very very good point. A 'station-less system', in effect will gradually migrate bicycles towards higher-usage areas only, thus reducing access in poorer/lower-usage areas.

[relation]

sounds like thats possible thru regulation and permits. but sounds like the city doesnt want to work with 'em given the exclusive with motivate? (that exclusivity is very bad taste imo)

[zbrozek]

I generally dislike stations (since they're never plentiful and rarely conveniently placed). But I think they're a good idea in high-traffic locations - e.g., next to Caltrain stations. They tamp down on the chaos of bikes piled up by the careless.

For a bike share program to be useful to me, it needs to do a few things:

1) The bike must be within a 3-minute walk of where I am right now.

2) I must be able to ditch the bike within a 3-minute walk of where I want to be.

3) The bike must actually be where I'm told it is. Or they must be so ubiquitous that I could trip over them if I'm not looking.

4) The bike must be in good working order and be obviously faster and more efficient than walking. For the Google campus bikes, for example, this is a problem. Most of them are slightly broken most of the time, such that it's usually faster to just run.

5) Be cost-and-time competitive against rideshare, personal bike ownership, mass-transit, and running shoes.

I wish you the best of luck - I think there's a lot of room for human-powered transportation to be super awesome in an area with such benign weather.