I've given thought to how in an ideal world, within specified growth areas, it could be beneficial to incorporate bikeshare docks &/or bike racks for varying land uses alongside the parking requirements which are already standard practice. In mid- and higher-density areas, in particular, if non-automotive modes could be made easier and more convenient: it could contribute toward a greater non-automotive mode shift – eventually reducing demand for additional roadway capacity, roadway maintenance costs, environmental costs, and costs to individuals through reduced vehicle and fuel needs. Businesses could potentially receive increased customers owing to greater access and foot traffic.
However, as I thought about this idea, I then tried to switch gears and think "Why isn't this already happening?" Particularly on that point about how businesses might acquire greater customers: if a business could replace one parking space with five bike docks or a dozen bike racks – which, in an urban environment, should have the potential to provide a somewhat corresponding number of increased customers – then why are they not already doing this? Several ideas that have crossed my mind, to which I will readily admit that none of them have been fully thought out or answered:
· The land use may not be oriented toward non-automotive trips. Many big box stores fit this bill, as it is difficult to bike home half a pallet of mustard from Costco or a new sink from Home Depot. Sure, both have smaller items; but likely not on the same degree of attraction as smaller-scale retail, food/drink establishments, schools and recreational facilities, or offices with a staff than turns ravenous at lunchtime.
· Are requirements stipulated by public agencies such that a business faces too much difficulty if they try to replace a parking space with bike infrastructure (running askew of minimum parking requirements) or if they attempt to incorporate bike infrastructure into the pedestrian domain (potentially triggering streetscape &/or ADA obligations)? Could any such requirements be loosened; and should they be? Or are sentiments toward abundance too strong; or are sidewalks too cluttered and narrow as they are?
· There may be some concern from a business that if they pay to install &/or maintain a bikeshare station or bike racks: what control do they have to ensure that it services their customers? Particularly with more expensive bikeshare docks: what if all its users go to the competing business next door? If the business is on the hook for maintenance: they may cut down on maintenance or perhaps even remove the station if they do not feel it justifies their benefit.*
· Is the proprietary nature of bikeshare any limitation to private developers being required to install them? If we imagine that businesses are now conditioned to provide stations, then several years later the bikeshare contract is put up to bid, and the selected winner is an entirely different company… is the existing bikeshare technology compatible? If not, who is going to be responsible for upgrading/replacing existing bikeshare infrastructure? Clearly, if businesses are potentially on the hook every time there is a change in contract this would be a pretty big obstacle to acceptance.**
I reiterate that none of these themes have been thought-out to any degree of completion – I am admittedly a bit short on the finer details of the contracting and technology currently in use in the DC region as well as other regions using similar bikesharing systems. However, it is at least the first thoughts I've managed to semi-coherently assemble as to how private industry may be brought in as a stronger partner toward improving transportation throughout our cities, states, and nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Financing Mechanisms
To this end I have wondered if it makes logistical sense to encourage businesses to install stations but public government would maintain them, but I quickly think it to the extreme whereby many businesses install stations & quickly sap the government's budget to maintain. So I then wonder if there is a middle-ground mechanism, for instance a financing zone extending from each docking station whereby those nearer in proximity pay more; those further pay less. Future research may contribute toward some differentiation based on land use: as an example, if a study finds that bars/restaurants generate greater net bikeshare usage than offices, perhaps bars/restaurants may contribute a higher portion than equidistant offices.
Such a financing mechanism could potentially be opt-in at an individual level, but this could result in a spotty and inconvenient system with few stations of any rational placement. It could be opt-in at the level of a downtown improvement district or some other representation of business interests, whereby a larger-scale system could be rolled out at a more comprehensive level. Or perhaps the government may finance installation and maintenance for some time, with costs eventually being shifted toward local businesses.
Such a financing mechanism could potentially be opt-in at an individual level, but this could result in a spotty and inconvenient system with few stations of any rational placement. It could be opt-in at the level of a downtown improvement district or some other representation of business interests, whereby a larger-scale system could be rolled out at a more comprehensive level. Or perhaps the government may finance installation and maintenance for some time, with costs eventually being shifted toward local businesses.
However, refining & changing a financing mechanism could certainly be difficult – if someone gets to pay less: someone else invariably pays more. Any changes would have to very clearly demonstrate the benefit to those being asked to contribute a greater cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Proprietary Technology
If the infrastructure is proprietary and incompatible: it may also be worth considering how competitive new bikeshare contact bidding may be to begin with. Regardless of whether public or private industry is paying for installation &/or maintenance, if the infrastructure is already there – clearly there would be a huge cost to change it should a competing bikeshare provider be selected; and that cost would have to be burdened by someone. If the previous contract-holder is selected: voila, no additional costs. If that extra cost is worked into the bid process: the previous contract-holder will win every time. If the extra cost is covered by existing public &/or private industries, then would that potentially-regular cost of infrastructure upgrading/replacement justify the potential savings attained from free market competitiveness? With a big enough system: I would assume not.
In response to this, I have wondered whether an open source bikeshare technology may be applied to ensure competitive practices as well as compatibility (assuming this is not already the case). Public industry's role would be more to define necessary specifications and standards, bikeshare providers' roles would become more hardware-focused and less software-focused, and developers could potentially handle a greater obligation toward investment and maintenance of the infrastructure itself. Developers may benefit from the reduced element of risk as well as greater cost savings from selecting among multiple vendors; and the local-oriented nature of bikeshare systems as well as readily-apparent usage may help developers feel that their investments are justified.
