Why don't they use abandoned bikes? They won't even pick them up anymore.

Web Link

Abandoned Bicycles

Due to recent budget cuts, we will no longer go out and pick up abandoned bicycles. However, if you like, you can bring the abandoned bicycle to the Police Department lobby at 275 Forest. You can do so during regular business hours Mon thru Fri 8am to 5pm. If you are reporting a bicycle that is locked to city property, please call 329-2258

Biker's got a good idea here. In years past the PAPD would get 50-100 bikes a year and auction them off for pennies on the dollar.

A free source of bikes would certainly help mitigate costs.

If they buy expensive new bikes, they'll get stolen anyway.

I am beginning to tell people I am from North Mountain View.

Using abandoned or donated bikes makes maintenance extremely difficult, since you have to stock so many different parts. Using a single model of bike means your parts inventory is much smaller. Also, most of the bike-sharing programs in large cities use special bikes with unique appearance so they can easily be identified as part of the program. That makes it very difficult for thieves to re-sell them.

Bike-sharing programs have been very successful in European cities, but our sprawl and commuter patterns here present obstacles. A transit-oriented program probably has the best chance for success and will reduce some of the pressure on Caltrain to accept more bikes on board.

So what made them think that there is a need for this?

Agree with RS. The surprising thing is not that they decided this was premature and a waste - it was that time was even spent considering such a costly boondoggle. We had a city employee(s) studying this and writing a report?? Good grief.

On to plastic bag bans...

Why can't the city leverage from the "Bikestation" at the downtown PA Caltrain station:

Web Link

They currently charge $116/year to store/check in/out bikes. They also offer bike repairs. Leveraging the "abandoned" bikes, I think a program for 20 bikes could be done for far less than the $65,000 for the six months that is being proposed.

Let's get real. We're in a big recession. Why consider subsidizing another feel-good program from a continually shrinking City revenue stream?

No one has the slightest idea that there would be significant reduction in car trips or carbon emission. Just opinions.

if all rode bikes there would be less emissions.also dont use clothes dryers,they are a significant source of global warming ,thats why its not going to rain anymore!

The proposed Palo Alto bikes are the actual 'Roue Libre' fleet from Paris! Abandoned bikes are not upscale uniform style, and a program with abandoned bikes is not insurable.

These public-bikes offset the need for car use downtown, and offset parking demand. Congestion reduction is one good reason to promote a share-a-bicycle program. Commuters and anyone who works downtown will instantly use these bikes. Anyone who has tried this in Europe will tell you the public-bike is much easier to get around on than in a car or in short bus transit.

The regional approach will take years to develop. The infrastructure for safe bike use is strong in Palo Alto and at Stanford. The rest of the region is not safe enough for a huge regional Santa Clara County wide bike-share program, yet.

So I say yes, start small with this smaller expense program, and lets be a community that goes beyond walking the walk towards gas-carbon-congestion-car use reduction.

Bill, how much would you be willing to contribute to the program? This sounds like something that should be privately funded, since such a bleeding edge effort is really not something a small city should take on.

BTW, how does this improve congestion downtown? Is the idea that people would park somewhere else (where?) and pick up a bike to get to their destination? Not sure how many would do that or what they would pay for it. I work downtown - if I used this, it would be instead of walking (downtown PA is pretty small), so not sure what impact it would have.

The only useful way for this program to work as far as I can see is having these bike rentals at the Caltrain stations and ideally they would need to be at eash station on the Caltrain line. The bikes could then be rented as someone gets off the train and used to get to work or Stanford and returned at the end of the day. For residents to benefit, they would need to be available for hire overnight so that people could take them home and then ride them to the station the next day. To make it profitable, the cost of renting the bikes must be low. If, as would make sense, Caltrain started charging for bikes on the trains, there would be added incentive to using rental bikes rather than using personal bikes.

Unless this program is run as an incentive for Caltrain users, I can't see who else would use it. Any local residents would probably prefer to use their own bikes and the number of visitors who come to Palo Alto and use the bikes would probably be too small to make it viable.

Resident has hit the nail on the head. The Bikestation rented bikes for tourists and sightseers, but mostly on the weekends, for a total of less than 1000 per year. A regional bike-sharing program based at Caltrain stations and other transit centers could benefit commuters and much heavier usage. Possible pilot locations are Palo Alto and Moffett Park. Those both have lots of employers in a compact area. The check-in and out locations and the pricing system would need to be designed to work for commuters instead of tourists or residents, but I believe that it can be done.

The first comments were about abandoned bikes, and now we seem to agree that is not the way this program would go.

The question of why do this has been passed up now, with people discussing all the ways it could be used.

We listen to talk of the great benefits for Caltrain commuters and overnight use too, to commute home, if the pricing is right.

Well all this good brainstorming will go to waist if we don't try it. I think the point of getting started is to round out this dialog with data, and maybe some incredable stories of success will emerge too. I've heard of people making appointments on time because the bikes were there. I've heard of the bikes being useful in emergencies, like after an earrthquake, or a crowded football game jam. I've heard of people who stop going to the doctor after actively using the bikes for a few weeks. I've heard of people meeting others at the station for a half hour bike ride in Paris. This will be good for Palo Alto.

Think how many times your personal bike tires are mistakenly flat, these public-bikes will be available for those down days. And think of the 20 lunchtime workers who might use these bikes instead of driving to lunch/errands. That is less cars at intersections, thus I call that congestion reduction. These bikes will do this all day. Count 20 cars the next time your at a stoplight and imagine them gone.

Lets get started and I'll sign up.

$65,000 for 20 bikes. That is $3250 per bike.

YES!!! We need this program!! Where can I sign up?

at that price I have a few bikes I can sell to the program!

What are the links to the Presentation, Staff & Bike Advisory Committee reports? What need does this fill?

Even without seeing these reports, itseems like we could fill any such need with recycled bikes & some volunteer effort, similar to the Bike Exchange Workshop.
Web Link

If we are going to get city resources let it be for better policing of bike theft. How come there are no cameras on the bike racks at the train stations, where there are always bike cadavers? With a good camera system, if those were Free Bike spots there would probably be no theft problem of free bikes or more valuable ones, and many fewer car trips.

I think police should be more stringent with bicyclists. If they fined all the bicyclists that don't wear helmets, don't obey traffic signs or lights, and do not use lights at night, they would be have a SURPLUS of money to support this program. I hope the program comes with a "learn how to CIVILLY ride a bike" or it's going to be a mess.

I nearly hit a cyclist last week, it was dark and he was invisible at 6:30 pm. Is using reflectors such a big deal that these idiots don't have them?
Another question is why everything the city does costs so much. Is it overhead or what.

I totally agree with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. Funds can best be spent in making the city even more biker-friendly.

I am a regular biker almost every day to many places in our city, which has so much biker-friendly terrain. And although there are bicycle lanes, bike racks and a bicycle boulevard, there is much more that could be added. Many times I have to secure my bike to a tree or lamp post because there are no bike racks nearby. I see bikers along dangerous roads, such as Alma St. Bike lane markings are needed on some streets that many bikers use.

And biking should be promoted more, including bicycle safe practices.

Whoever said bikes need reflectors only is wrong. I almost hit a bike at a 4 way stop when a bike came across in front of me from the left not stopping and without any lights back or front. This bike rider was wearing dark clothing and could not be seen from the side. Reflectors only work if you see a bike in your headlights, and headlight point forwards and to the right, not the far right or left, so if a bike doesn't stop when he sees a car he is likely to be hit because he can't be seen unless he has lights front and back.

If you read the report and look at the budget, the cost of the bikes is only about 1/3 of the total. The rest is for salaries, insurance, the building to store the bikes, etc. Even so, I would rather see Palo Alto's money spent on bike racks and route signs for those already biking, and let regional organizations like VTA and Caltrain pay for the bike sharing program.

The headline for this thread says "costly bike-sharing program", where the initial cost is $65,000. Council member Pat Burt said tonight that a single parking place for a car costs $40,000! When compared to that, $65,000 to start a program with 20 bikes doesn't sound so costly at all. The city pays a lot of money to provide "free" parking to people who drive cars.

Only in Palo Alto would someone make the statement that $63K for a 6 month program with 20 rental bikes "doesn't sound so costly at all."

"These public-bikes offset the need for car use downtown, and offset parking demand. Congestion reduction is one good reason to promote a share-a-bicycle program. Commuters and anyone who works downtown will instantly use these bikes."
Isn't there some law or city ordinance that prohibits bicycle riding on downtown sidewalks? I'm a biker but I'd NEVER attempt sharing a downtown street with cars. Downtown Palo Alto is the most bike unfriendly place to ride, with Calif. Ave a close second unless you're just passing through.
If the purpose of this program is to relieve downtown congestion, it's a really stupid idea.

Except for the cost, I like the idea. But I think the timing is premature. First of all, downtown Palo Alto -- and Palo Alto in general -- lacks sufficient bike parking for those of us already on bikes. I think it would be prudent to add more bicycle racks before adding a fleet of new bicycles. Second, I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting a bunch of visitors on bicycles in our downtown area. Palo Alto may be bike friendly compared to other cities, but it's not ready for prime time, especially in the areas that are likely to be of interest to tourists or businesspeople.